A comparison of pulse oximetry and laser Doppler flowmetry in monitoring sequential vascular occlusion in a rabbit ear model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ultimate success of any free flap transfer depends not only on the experience of the given surgical team, but also requires constant vigilance in the perioperative period to assure continued anastomotic patency. Clinical acumen remains the 'industry' standard, but adjunctive monitoring devices are important to reinforce these subjective evaluations. We routinely use laser Doppler flowmetry in spite of known drawbacks, including expense. On the other hand, we know that pulse oximetry is a possible and readily available alternative. The efficacy of these two monitoring systems was directly compared in a New Zealand white rabbit central artery and vein ear model. Arterial occlusion was immediately recognized by a precipitous drop in flow and oxygen saturation (SaO2). A rapid drop in flow after venous occlusion with a trend to zero was also noted with laser Doppler flowmetry. The SaO2 had a very slow but steady gradual decline, but values remained in the range of normoxemia for a prolonged time. Because a minimum threshold of SaO2 for predicting venous occlusion was elusive, the usefulness of pulse oximetry for monitoring microsurgical composite tissue transfers is limited.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".